PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 Versus UTI BANK LIMITED

Disallowance made u/s 14A - Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to delete the suo moto disallowance of ₹ 6.23 crores made by the assessee company in the return of income - ITAT deleted the disallowance - Held that:- The question of disallowance under section 14A of the Act has been examined on the basis of materials on record. The Tribunal found that the assessee's interest free funds far exceeded its interest free investments. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of this court in cas .....

ssessee can only make a new claim which was not made in the original return, by way of filing a revised u/s 139(5) of the Act only, as held by Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (Supreme Court)? 3. Though three questions are framed, issue is common viz. disallowance of a global sum of ₹ 38.68 crores made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). From the record, it emerges that for the ass .....

remand, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 28.10.2015, considered the issue on merit. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had sufficient interest free funds in excess of interest free investments. The Tribunal recorded that the surplus percentage of interest free funds were at the rate of 373%. Referring to the decision of this Court in case of the assessee pertaining to the later assessment years, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee and deleted the entire disal .....

h of this Court in case of CIT v. Mitesh Impex reported in 270 CTR 66 (Guj). 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, we do not see any error in the view of the Tribunal. The question of disallowance under section 14A of the Act has been examined on the basis of materials on record. The Tribunal found that the assessee's interest free funds far exceeded its interest free investments. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of this court in case of .....

84 ITR 323 and National Thermal Power (supra) a in case of Mitesh Impex had observed as under: 38. It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what Supreme Court observed in the said judgment while distinguishing the judgment in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax .....